>>4381293>#1decent shot, nice light
but isn't very sharp or contrasty at all
that's all post-process crap
here's a neutral take on it
no sharpening or added contrast at all
only vignette brightness corrected, despite being a zoom it's well controlled so other stuff isn't needed
the eyelashes are soft and don't seem to be in the focal plane or maybe that is the promist softening them
either way your editing program was able to detect they existed and highlighted them but that's not microcontrast or lens related that's just editing
seems like a pretty good zoom but your JPEGs are heavily baked which is typical for people trying to post examples of microcontrast
>#2apparently corrupt?
not sure what happened
if this is a prime lens it might be a bit sharper but still even a great lens won't ever deliver that "crispy" sharp stuff you get from overbaked post-processing that people like to associate/shill as being part of glass when it really isn't
narrow DOF and nice focal plane control gives the "3d" subject isolation effect and lenses with just good contrast give good fine detail rendition, microcontrast and 3d pop are just snake oil ways to muddy the waters and confuse people
